[Complete][SC] Repeal: “Liberate Dank Memes”

Tadovan

Tadovan

TNPer
Category: Repeal
Target: SC #205
Proposed by: tim-opolis
Onsite Topic

Security Council Resolution #205 “Liberate Dank memes” shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The Security Council,

Acknowledging that Security Council Resolution #205 was passed for the purposes of preventing Dank Memes from being refounded while being invaded,

Noting that the aforementioned resolution only had to be passed due to naive carelessness by the native delegate La Navasse,

Observing that the region Dank Memes is now under the control of Captain Woodhouse, formerly of Nazi Europa,

Recognizing that this situation came about as a result of numerous blunders by former delegate La Navasse and the region's invader occupants HYDRA Command,

Illuminating the fact that La Navasse subsequently released a dispatch to the world in which they claimed Nazi Europa would allegedly help refound Dank Memes,

Emphasizing a specific part of the statement which said "Dank Memes shall become a fascist state and provide military assistance to Nazi Europa eternally",

Hugely Amused by the fact that Dank Memes was never returned to La Navasse, and is still held by Captain Woodhouse,

Believing that since the region of Dank Memes has been permanently refounded there is little value for a Liberation continuing to exist,

Hereby Repeals Security Council Resolution #205 "Liberate Dank Memes".
Click to expand...

Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

[wavote=the_north_pacific,sc]2017_06_06_repeal_liberate_dank_memes[/wavote]
[wavote=world,sc]2017_06_06_repeal_liberate_dank_memes[/wavote]
 
Rather than justifying the repeal of the liberation by explaining the technical reasoning behind it, the resolution relies heavily on disparaging another nation's actions, which we believe is inappropriate outside of a condemnation. La Navasse's behavior may be worthy of criticism, but not within the text of a liberation repeal. While keeping the liberation in place and repealing it are both equally ineffective with regards to a founder-imposed password, a repeal would at least remove an unnecessary badge. The resolution should have only highlighted that.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote against the resolution.
 
I'd like to suggest a vote against this proposal, going to try to keep my rationale nice and short.

Before I go into why the proposal should be voted against, I'd first like to address how this proposal is not urgent.

The region liberated has since been refounded and locked by them. The resolution serves no purpose; it doesn't need to be repealed in order to let the natives impose a password.

That being said, this resolution should still be repealed, there's no need for this type of region to have a badge as it is useless and only serves as an advertisement. However, we should take the time to get it right.

In my opinion, this resolution doesn't get it right.

Why?

As was recently mentioned in a voting thread in the General Assembly, while resolutions may be repealed, repeals may not. As such, this resolution will be on the books forever.

What I find objectionable about this resolution is that it mentions at several points certain regions which should not have any publicity at all. I don't see why at some points the mentioning of certain regions could not simply be replaced with other words.

There's precedent for SC votes popularizing regions, I mentioned one a while ago in the CAIN thread. I think that TNP should continue to take the stance that we have previously taken when there are resolutions that could promote regions that shouldn't be.

I sincerely doubt the author is intending to promote those regions but nevertheless, I fear it may and thus recommend voting against it.

The Security Council should take its' time and get it right. There's nothing urgent about this resolution.
 
Praetor:
I'd like to suggest a vote against this proposal, going to try to keep my rationale nice and short.

Before I go into why the proposal should be voted against, I'd first like to address how this proposal is not urgent.

The region liberated has since been refounded and locked by them. The resolution serves no purpose; it doesn't need to be repealed in order to let the natives impose a password.

That being said, this resolution should still be repealed, there's no need for this type of region to have a badge as it is useless and only serves as an advertisement. However, we should take the time to get it right.

In my opinion, this resolution doesn't get it right.

Why?

As was recently mentioned in a voting thread in the General Assembly, while resolutions may be repealed, repeals may not. As such, this resolution will be on the books forever.

What I find objectionable about this resolution is that it mentions at several points certain regions which should not have any publicity at all. I don't see why at some points the mentioning of certain regions could not simply be replaced with other words.

There's precedent for SC votes popularizing regions, I mentioned one a while ago in the CAIN thread. I think that TNP should continue to take the stance that we have previously taken when there are resolutions that could promote regions that shouldn't be.

I sincerely doubt the author is intending to promote those regions but nevertheless, I fear it may and thus recommend voting against it.

The Security Council should take its' time and get it right. There's nothing urgent about this resolution.
Click to expand...
Completely agree with this. Also, this resolution seems like it intends to outline the failures of the founder of Dank Memes, who the author is very opposed to, instead of why the region's liberation should be repealed.
 
Against.

Praetor's points are well-put, and I agree fully with them.

NOTE: Will go to an SC vote soon. We'd like to see if there's anyone with any differing views on the issue. Don't be shy if you do.
 
Howdy,

I hope it's fine that I post here, as I'm the author and would like to counter some statements that were made.

I'd first like to address how this proposal is not urgent.
Click to expand...

Pallaith, if anybody implied it was urgent, please tell me who. This is simply a matter of cleaning up the SC from pointless proposals that, honestly, should have never been passed in the first place. The SC is quiet right now, nothing else significant is in the queue, and it is most definitely not a matter or urgency nor should it be called that.

What I find objectionable about this resolution is that it mentions at several points certain regions which should not have any publicity at all. I don't see why at some points the mentioning of certain regions could not simply be replaced with other words.
Click to expand...

Let's all just be straight up, this opposition is due to the mention of Nazi Europa. While I can understand why there would be issue with the name mention of them, I think it's important that we understand the character of La Navasse, the former native delegate, before we truly object to that. This is a player who will lie, deny, and lie some more to try to make people sympathize for him. We dealt with this multiple times when we were trying to liberate his region initially. I had heard in some places that he was planning to potentially draw sympathy for the keeping of the proposal, and therefore concluded that it would be important to effectively remove what sympathy might exist for an un-deserving former delegate. I don't think it brings the Nazis any glory, and is more used as an instrument of explaining why the native delegate should not be one to grant sympathy to, rather than any sort of factor that boosts Nazism and its cause.

I will also note that this proposal has been in the SC Subforums for months, and no objection was provided towards the mention of Nazi Europa from anyone besides Ex-Nazi Woodhouse. There was plenty of times for an objection to be raised by WA Ministers about issues regarding terminology within the proposal.
 
Tim, I haven't actually made any statements about this resolution. Praetor is the one you are speaking to I believe. I sure hope to hear from more of you though, I hate to cast a vote on so little.
 
For the 7 or so months I've been a part of the ministry, I admit that my presence on the onsite forum has been non-existent. I've been watching, but not contributing. Had I been more open to onsite forum activity, I would have said something about this. Perhaps in the future I will. And I know my new deputy Tadovan will, seeing as he's already more active on the board.

No matter what our feelings are about La Navasse, no matter what his behavior has been, there's no excuse to disparage another player in the text of a liberation repeal, especially since repeals can't be removed from the books. My problem is not the mentioning of Nazi Europa. It's this...

Noting that the aforementioned resolution only had to be passed due to naive carelessness by the native delegate La Navasse,

Recognizing that this situation came about as a result of numerous blunders by former delegate La Navasse and the region's invader occupants HYDRA Command,
Click to expand...
I don't believe that language has any place in a liberation repeal. A condemnation, sure. Not here. You should have focused on the mechanics of why the liberation is unnecessary especially after the refounding.

Against
 
Against (sorry Tim), for the reasons Praetor mentioned, but also because the bill seems rather subjective, especially using language like "Hugely Amused" and "Believing" for the clause beginnings. I'd rather have a better written repeal bill pass. Also, the language that SD pointed out further affirms my point.
 
Pallaith:
Tim, I haven't actually made any statements about this resolution. Praetor is the one you are speaking to I believe. I sure hope to hear from more of you though, I hate to cast a vote on so little.
Click to expand...
I totally misread and this is what I get for drinking wine all day. Sorry Pallaith o>

I'd love to hear more though about what you'd want to hear.

As to the comments in regards to disparaging, I would like to ask if you've met La Navasse? This is someone who denied his plans to work with Nazis until we directly called him out on it, someone who repeatedly disregarded experienced defender advice in exchange for being convinced by raider shitposters and his own misguided thoughts. This is someone who goes under a new alias every few weeks when people realize it's him and start disregarding his opinions rather than treating him as an anon troll puppet. I think it's very important, in a situation where the former native may try to re-write history, to call out his issues in the situation.

Should this fail, though, I'd be happy to hear advice on how to re-write those sections. However, I think, given the character of La Navasse, it remains critical to note that it's due to a native disregard for tact that this region fell.
 
Tim:
Pallaith:
Tim, I haven't actually made any statements about this resolution. Praetor is the one you are speaking to I believe. I sure hope to hear from more of you though, I hate to cast a vote on so little.
Click to expand...
I totally misread and this is what I get for drinking wine all day. Sorry Pallaith o>

I'd love to hear more though about what you'd want to hear.

As to the comments in regards to disparaging, I would like to ask if you've met La Navasse? This is someone who denied his plans to work with Nazis until we directly called him out on it, someone who repeatedly disregarded experienced defender advice in exchange for being convinced by raider shitposters and his own misguided thoughts. This is someone who goes under a new alias every few weeks when people realize it's him and start disregarding his opinions rather than treating him as an anon troll puppet. I think it's very important, in a situation where the former native may try to re-write history, to call out his issues in the situation.

Should this fail, though, I'd be happy to hear advice on how to re-write those sections. However, I think, given the character of La Navasse, it remains critical to note that it's due to a native disregard for tact that this region fell.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking to you. Sorry Tim :P

When I said hear more from you I meant a general you, the entire thread. I didn't have more than a couple posts to go off of when I posed that. There does seem to be a consensus building though. Personally I'm very conservative when it comes to repeals, because of their permanence. However, in the past I have seen good examples of when to say in a repeal what you would never get a chance to say in another resolution (such as when we had to repeal condemnations of nations or regions who no longer exist). So there may be exceptions to what Sil is saying, but if there are, they may not apply in this case.
 
Perfectly fine for you to post here Tim, indeed, it is encouraged.

I simply remarked that the proposal was not urgent because often resolutions dealing with liberations are.

For the record, on May 1st I messaged Tim on Discord regarding my objections to the resolution, namely Nazi Europa being specifically mentioned, I received no reply. Considering that I have seen evidence that SC votes can influence the popularity of a region, I'm going to pass on withdrawing my objections.

I am well aware of La Navasse, his character and his behaviour. I have no objections to what you put about him. Personally, I don't think it is critical enough. I would recommend language such as "Apathetic to the region" or "Not caring about the region". I don't care to discuss all of the issues with La Navasse, you may feel free to enlighten the rest of the region as to his exploits.
 
Rubbish arguments for the against side.

And I'd like to note that I'm so much against giving Nazis attention that I oppose CAIN etc for those reasons.

But Nazis shouldn't have Lib badges on their regions either.
 
Against, For Sil and Prateor's arguments.
Tim somehow presents a valid For argument or there needs to be some discussion of why it should pass.
 
Guy:
Rubbish arguments for the against side.

And I'd like to note that I'm so much against giving Nazis attention that I oppose CAIN etc for those reasons.

But Nazis shouldn't have Lib badges on their regions either.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm glad you were able to identify my argument... I'm not sure what yours is...

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that the liberation is kept.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top